High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Additional District Judge’s order rejecting a defendant’s application to amend a written statement submitted 10 years after filing, when plaintiff’s evidence was completed long before.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9968/2019
Smt. Mainadevi W/o Shri Santosh Kabra, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Mahajan Kabra R/o Chandpole Gate, Sikar Tehsil And District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pujari, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Damodar Prasad Pujari, Adv. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
01/07/2019
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant challenging order dt.12.03.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Sikar whereby application filed by the defendant-petitioner for seeking amendment in written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.
Mr. Yogesh Pujari, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had sought amendment as soon as the facts came to his knowledge and the proposed amendment would not change the nature of proceedings/suit and as such the trial Court
(2 of 2)
[CW-9968/2019]
has committed illegality in disallowing the amendment sought for by the petitioner.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
This Court has gone through the order of the court below and finds that the written statement was filed by the defendantpetitioner in the present case on 28.08.2008 and lateron the evidence of the plaintiff was completed and the examination-inchief and cross examination from the defendant, has also taken place.
The Court below has found that after completing the evidence of the plaintiff in the year 2008, present application has been filed seeking amendment in the written statement, after a delay of 10 years and as such the amendment cannot be said to be justified in the facts of the case.
This Court finds that the Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dt.12.03.2019. This is admitted case that the written statement was filed in the year 2008 and the evidence of the plaintiff was completed long back. The amendment which is sought by the petitioner cannot be said to be bonafide and further the ground on which the amendment is sought, does not appear to be appropriate and in accordance with the law.
The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Ashish Kumar /369/12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an illegality in dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement filed after a delay of 10 years when plaintiff’s evidence was already completed.
Whether the proposed amendment was bona fide and appropriate under the law allowing amendments that do not change the nature of proceedings.
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal of the amendment application has any merit in the present facts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Mainadevi W/o Shri Santosh Kabra
Rajesh Odaka
Shri Mahindra Kanwar
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
